Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/19/1976CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JULY 19, 1976 At the August 2nd meeting of the City Council it was voted to approve the Minutes of July 19, 1976, subject to the following correction: On page 8, 4th line from the bottom of the page, Burlington should be changed to South Burlington. CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 19, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, July 19, 1976, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; Frank H. Armstrong, John B. Dinklage, Michael D. Flaherty, Catherine M. Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT. None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager, Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Debra Weiner, Mike Brown, Charlotte Marsh, James Cressey, G. F. Laramie, Earl D. Wilkins, Tom Schmidt The meeting was opened by the Chairman at 8:00 p.m. The following additions to the Agenda were approved by the Council: 10. Action on unlicensed dogs, 11. Procedures to formulate Council position and actions on items before the Zoning Board, 12. Suggestion received from Art Hogen regarding signalization at University Mall. Minutes of July 7, 1976 On page 2 it was noted that 50,000 square feet should be changed to 30,000 square feet. On page 3, line 15, the word he should be changed to the Chairman. On page 6, line 26, the vote was 4 against, 1 in favor, rather than 3 to 2 as stated in the Minutes. On page 5, under Committee appointments, in Mr. Flaherty's motion, the Council was uncertain about the length of the term for Ray Stearns. The City Manager is to check on this and make a correction if necessary. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Minutes of July 7, 1976, be accepted as corrected, subject to the checking of the appointment of Mr. Stearns for its correctness by the City Manager. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Disbursement orders The Chairman noted the Disbursement orders were available for signature. Discussion on implementation of a Capital Budget Program Chairman Farrar referred to copies received by the members of a Capital Projection made up by Mr. Szymanski as required by the City Charter; this projection was three years old. Mr. Farrar then referred to the Nadworny Report and explained why he felt the 1980 projection based on a 2% growth in population seemed the reasonable one to work with, the most realistic one. The base line for population projections would determine the placement of all the other items in the time frame. It was suggested by Charlotte Marsh these things could be done by voting on them. Mr. Farrar explained the purpose was to set forth a long-range plan of capital improvements; as each item comes up for implementation that issue would go to a vote if a bond issue was required. Once this Capital Program was passed, no other items could be put up unless the Program was modified. The community would be able to gauge each issue not only on its specific merits but also on whatever demands were going to be placed on the community in the near future. Voters could decide whether or not to support an item while knowing what they would be asked to support in years to come. Mr. Farrar said if the highest projection was chosen there would be certain capital requirements that would come into play which would not be there if the lower projection was chosen. Asked by Mr. Armstrong about growth in terms of the immediate past year, Mr. Farrar said South Burlington had a lower than normal growth because growth has moved to Essex Town and to Colchester. Now that the cost of development in those communities is going to be increasing, that is going to direct some of the pressure back into South Burlington and growth here will increase. Mr. Dinklage noted this population growth projects a total elementary and high school population not significantly different than what it is today. Mr. Farrar felt the Council's successors should know what the present Council's assumptions were; this should be resolved early in the deliberations although not necessarily tonight. Mr. Dinklage moved that for planning purposes Council accept a population growth rate of 2% as a reasonable projections leading to an estimated population of 12,230 and a school population of 2,911 by 1980, as indicated in Table I, Chapter 11, of the Master Plan. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mrs. Neubert suggested checking with the school census; the building rate of growth could be 2% and the birth rate might not be 2%. The Chairman felt this action and any other actions taken should be referred back to the Planning Commission for their comments. Mrs. Neubert referred to the warning from the Zoning Administrator that the number of units approved, although not yet constructed, would mean South Burlington had reached the 2% growth rate that was acceptable in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Farrar felt these things were folded into the projections of the Master Plan, and the lower projections based on today's situation seem more realistic. There is a marked difference in distribution of children although the difference in population is only 700. Miss Marsh made a plea for less shopping centers and more people living in town to pay taxes, saying it was a false assumption that businesses pay more taxes than people. Mr. Dinklage's motion was voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Dinklage suggested all decisions taken at this meeting be given not only to the Planning Commission but to the other bodies of the City government. Chairman Farrar suggested the next basic underlying assumption should be at what rate non-residential development is to take place over the next ten years. Mr. Dinklage suggested that the Planning Assistant and the City Assessor to try to mesh what is known of the commercial plans on the drawing board and the estimated assessment over a period of time, how the grand list will increase based on both commercial and residential, what can be anticipated as a reasonable increase. Mrs. Neubert felt the two sections of the Master Plan should be made to work for us right now, the one section which controls the growth and the section which controls the capital growth. Otherwise the section about 2% will not jibe with this other section. She asked if the City had reached that 2% growth, how many were built under that 2% growth rate. The Chairman said because a project is approved doesn't always mean it gets built. A Capital Budget put together based on some assumptions will be in part a self- fulfilling prophecy because one of the things the City may not have to do is to put in a Kennedy Drive pumping station because the development which would feed into that might not take place until 1985. It is necessary to look both at the number of building permits issued and the number of things the City has planned. Mrs. Neubert said she wanted to look at those things because there might be a building spurt and Council did receive the memorandum that the 2% had been reached, approved though not built. Mr. Dinklage felt the future increases in the grand list could be compared with what had been estimated and the City's plans adjusted accordingly. Certain capital expenditures would be planned to support a certain growth and then see if actual growth is exceeding or lagging in what had been expected. Mr. Farrar said the grand list is non-inflationary the way it is presently handled. The City Manager said the year 1977-78 is close to what the City has now, it is running ahead of projections. Mr. Farrar explained the cost of building is higher, the cost is higher than the existing buildings. Mrs. Neubert felt that was not true. Mr. Farrar said the cost is much more expensive than the houses in the older portions of the City, more than the average house that presently exists in the community. Mr. Dinklage said the grand list should be expected to increase faster than 2% because the value added is more than 2%. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council ask the City Assessor and the Planning Assistant to prepare an estimated grand list projection based on approved development plans and their estimated fair market value up to 1980. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Mr. Page felt some were more likely than others; the Industrial Park for example should be developed in the next four years. Mr. Dinklage felt there could be just a simple explanation of what value they would ascribe to the Industrial Park and in what years the City Assessor and Mr. Page would expect it to be accomplished. Mr. Dinklage's motion was voted unanimously for approval. Miss Marsh stated the City needs a new City building; this present one is a disgrace and was condemned; money spent on this one is money thrown away. Further discussion of the Capital Budget Program was deferred in order to take up other items on the Agenda for which people in the audience were waiting. Consider setting up a task force to study the airport noise problem Mr. Armstrong stated he had been extremely well pleased with the Williston Road Task Force, in the quality of the personnel which volunteered to give their own time to the City. Now there is another problem, the projected noise of the airport for 20 years hence. He thought it would be well to try to locate a task force to study the relationship between South Burlington and the Burlington airport; not to have any direct access to the City Attorney but any queries to be given to the City Manager to transmit to the Attorney. At this stage he was just suggesting asking for volunteers, consulting with them and making appointments. The task force would study the projected growth, the noise standards, and the FAA guidelines, perhaps disaster coordination between South Burlington and the airport. Recommendations could be made of steps the City might take to better the relationship between the airport and South Burlington. Chairman Farrar felt it could be useful to have the City's representative on the Airport Commission come in for a discussion with Council; some of these things could be answered directly by him and he might be appointed a member of the task force. Some of these questions might be eliminated because it would be found they are in proper perspective to start with. He then asked the people in the audience what they would particularly like to discuss regarding the airport. Mr. James Cressey referred to the Airport Master Plan, asking about what capital expenditures the airport would propose in the enlargement of the airport during the next 20 years and what was meant by a high density airport, what land acquisition would take place for an airport which would handle 250,000 operations a year. Mr. Cressey, Mr. Laramie, and Mr. Wilkins, residents of Logwood and Forest Streets, all described the excessive noise now present in the airport neighborhood. Mr. Cressey said there had been a steady stream of complaints from residents and they had been told there was nothing that could be done. Noise can be measured and it should be reduced to statutory definition. There should be a working relationship between the airport and the residents of the area, that the residents expect certain concessions to be made. He had been told the airport would resist any intention of South Burlington to regulate the operation of the airport. He felt South Burlington could regulate, as long as it wasn't in conflict with the Federal law, and he thought there should be some type of regulatory controls which would define what is excess noise and what isn't. Mrs. Neubert said she had been horrified when she saw the Airport Master Plan which had been approved and filed with the Federal government without consulting South Burlington in any way or asking how it fitted in with this community. Mr. Laramie and Mr. Wilkins felt there should have been input from South Burlington at the time and not a review after-the-fact. Mr. Cressey stated there would have been a different turnout at this meeting if the Agenda item had been given more publicity, and an assurance that Council was finally reaching a conclusion that the airport situation is something which must not be lived with any longer. Mr. Armstrong said the main thing to resolve now is to advertise for qualified people to serve on this task force; interested citizens could then attend the task force meetings to give input. Tom Schmidt, Airport Manager, said the airport has a low rate of complainers. Six weeks ago they voluntarily imposed a curfew on the airport for any run-ups between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., and if there are violations they intend to bring a citation. Except for planes taking off, there is to be no maintenance. Mr. Schmidt then stated there has been a tremendous amount of confusion about the Master Plan. Federal regulations which set up the Master Plan system were designed for municipalities with airports within their boundaries; therefore the recommendations are on the theory that the city operating the airport also had control of the land. The regulations are not flexible enough to take care of the residential use of land located around the airport. He also said the original plan was put in place in 1972; everyone got all the drafts of the documents as they went along. This was all handled by their consultant but unfortunately there is nothing the airport can do or undo about what the consultant has to say, but it does not bind the airport nor does it bind the City, it is just the way the regulations require, Mr. Schmidt said he did meet with Mr. Spokes who had not realized what the requirement implications of the plan were; Mr. Schmidt was sure Mr. Spokes would explain this to Council. Mr. Schmidt then explained they fully intend to implement what is in the plan as far as actual property of the airport is concerned, but anything outside of those boundaries they have no control over. All they could do would be to try to persuade South Burlington to zone according to the recommendations of the consultant. Mrs. Neubert told him they took no consideration of human beings; they had no public hearing on this where input might have been given; land values are affected by their projected growth plans. Mr. Cressey commented a municipality can impose a curfew but cannot close down an airport unless it is owned by the municipality. He said that when the airport had removed houses, it had the effect of removing some of the sound barrier. The Federal government should not dictate to us what is allowable and what is not; it does not have blanket approval to harass 400 people. He has found the Airport Commission to be very unresponsive to any discussion. Mr. Schmidt said anyone having a complaint involving noise should call the Airport Police. Mr. Armstrong said this was typical interaction that could take place among the people, the Airport Commission, and the task force; in some cases there may be misunderstanding, but he would propose going ahead with the task force. Mr. Armstrong then moved that Council authorize the City Manager to advertise for interested persons, to get their names and credentials to the City Council, they will be called for interviews and appointments will be made to the task force, the purpose of which would be to study the relationship between South Burlington and the Burlington Airport. A specific charge would follow after discussion with the City's representative to the Airport Commission. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Dinklage said he would like the opportunity to discuss this with South Burlington's representative to the Airport Commission prior to determining that there should be a task force. For example, Council could discuss with him the ways in which he sees himself operating in the Airport Commission for South Burlington before a liaison group is set up separate from our representative, whether that is the most effective way to approach this problem. Mr. Flaherty felt that obviously something is needed. A task force would perhaps include four or five citizens and Tom Schmidt, and he felt it would be best to go ahead with this reasonably quickly. He didn't see it just as concerning noise; there are other problems such as traffic, taxes, problems which go much beyond the noise problem. Mrs. Neubert felt if the task force is treated well and they get cooperation from the airport people, everyone will have learned something. Mr. Schmidt said he thought it was a good idea to put together a task force, but not necessarily identified with noise. The airport has stopped the noise problem at night but does not have the authority to curtail flights. On general items of interest he felt it was a good idea. Mr. Armstrong's motion was approved by four votes, Mr. Dinklage abstaining. The City Manager was asked to have the Airport representative come in for the next meeting. Mr. Dinklage suggested setting the number of members for the task force and the Chairman said he would prefer to wait until after the representative came to the next meeting. Adopt resolution on adjustment in the terms of the Zoning Board of Adjustment After the proposed resolution was read aloud by Chairman Farrar, Mr. Flaherty moved that Council sign the resolution to regularize the terms of office of the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. Discussion on increasing membership on the Zoning Board of Adjustment Chairman Farrar said it would also be reasonable to discuss the length of the terms as well as increasing membership. Mr. Dinklage favored increasing the membership but keeping the same terms, allowing an increase in membership to seven. Mrs. Neubert was also in favor of increasing the membership. Mr. Armstrong said he was against the idea of increasing the membership after the discussion with the members of the Board last week. Mr. Flaherty said the Zoning Board felt it was a poor time to have an increase because it would be interpreted as reacting to a decision of the Board that was not well liked. He felt it should be on the ballot in May as was done when the Planning Commission membership was changed. The Chairman said according to State law it could be done by resolution but personally he would not support that. However, it is within the power of the Council to suggest to the Planning Commission that they consider an amendment to strike from the zoning ordinance any reference to the composition of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Then the Council could proceed by resolution to change the Board membership or it could proceed to put the item on the ballot for a Charter change. He felt Council had had its chance to change the composition of the Board. He said he had been unhappy with decisions of all groups, even this one (Council), but that was not, in his mind, the reason to change the composition. He said he had given it some thought and felt that a seven-member board could probably in the long run be a more useful board to the community. In three years a person can just about get to know the job. A seven-member board with somewhat longer terms might be a very wise solution to this problem. He described a situation where one member might abstain because of the specifics of a case, and another member being absent, and it would take an affirmative vote by the three remaining members to grant a variance, and that should be considered. Also, terms shorter than three years are counter-productive, there is a temptation to vote on the "last act" and it also takes time to acquire a background. Therefore, the Chairman said, he favored a seven-member board but longer terms. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council request the Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance deleting all reference to the composition and terms of office of the Zoning Board of Adjustment; and that Council refer the question of enlarging the zoning Board of Adjustment to seven members to the City Charter Committee for their comments with the understanding it is the intent of Council to place an amendment to the City Charter before the voters which would increase the size of the Zoning Board of Adjustment to seven members whose terms would be three and four years. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Armstrong said he would propose an amendment substituting the word five for seven. Mr. Flaherty said he would agree. Decisions should be separate from the actions of the Board, but unfortunately in the real world people are going to say the decision was made on the Lamplough property and now we are changing the membership of the Board, This is doing a disservice to all the boards, appearing to say if you do something we don't like, we will do something about it; we are not asking for independent people but the rubber stamp kind. Mr. Flaherty recommended sending this to the Charter Committee and ask them to study the makeup of the Zoning Board and see if this is the best way. It would become less personal. Mr. Dinklage said anyone who accepts appointment to public office understands that this appointment means if the appointing body does not like the actions of those whom it appoints, such persons will not be reappointed. Mr. Flaherty said it is also necessary to ask for people who will exercise their independence. Mr. Armstrong said he agreed with Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty said the best way would be to ask for a Charter change in May, He would like to send it back to the Charter Committee asking if five was the proper number. Miss Marsh suggested five members with their terms overlapping in such a way that each member can become acquainted with the others ideas; also that they get to know the different properties in the town much more than if there are seven on the board. Mr. Farrar said he would personally like to see the Zoning Board's composition included in the Charter, whether it be five members or seven. Two things are being asked, he said, the reference in the zoning ordinance to the membership of the Zoning Board to be stricken, then the Charter Committee to be asked to study the desirability of changing the membership to seven. The vote on Mr. Armstrong's amendment to substitute five for seven was two ayes and three nays, defeating the amendment. The vote on Mr. Dinklage's motion was three ayes, and two nays, with the motion being carried. Resolution authorizing Mr. Flaherty to execute documents of acceptance of the Federal Grant for the Bartletts Bay sewer project. The resolution was read aloud by Chairman Farrar. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council authorize Mr. Flaherty to execute the documents of acceptance of the Federal Grant for the Bartletts Bay sewer project. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Further discussion on skating-swimming facilities proposal Mr. Dinklage said the purpose of the special Steering Committee meeting is to discuss whether or not any question relating to the proposed skating-swimming facility should be on the questionnaire which is being sent out under the auspices of the School Board. Miss Marsh asked if the Kiwanis members are all South Burlington residents and was told by Chairman Farrar that as far as he knew they were, although he was not a member himself. Miss Marsh felt the expenditure of 1.4 million dollars was ridiculous. She asked several questions about the proposal which were answered by Council members. She then referred again to the need for a City Hall, saying the land had been given by the DesLauriers family with the restriction that if a City Hall was not built within ten years the land would revert back to the DesLauriers family — and the ten years is up next year. She felt this was the first project the City should undertake Every time it is voted upon, it is too elaborate and people wouldn't vote for it. She recommended a very practical building, simple and fireproof, and the Dorset Street location because it is the easiest to reach from both sides of the town. Chairman Farrar explained a new agreement with Mr. DesLauriers was to be taken up as the next item on the Agenda, that the ten-year restriction would no longer exist. Mr. Armstrong recommended the question be taken off the school questionnaire because of the projection of a small number of families and singles using the facility. They should come up with some scientific basis for changing these figures. Mr. Dinklage said the School Board doesn't wish to put it on as their action alone. Mrs. Neubert said the questionnaire started off by being on their immediate school problems. It was stated this item was the only item on the Agenda for the meeting of the Steering Committee. Accept Deslauriers land swap deeds Mr. Farrar explained this swap would increase the City-owned land by 9000 square feet and releases the City from any obligation to construct a road through there or any contractual obligation as to what the City would construct there at any time. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council empower the City Manager to sign the Deslauriers land swap deeds. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. A question was raised about whether a variance would be necessary to put the proposed recreational facility on this land. Mr. Flaherty said there were two placements; the one shown would require a variance but another plan which had not been shown with the proposal would not require one. The motion by Mr. Dinklage was voted unanimously for approval. Chairman Farrar then read aloud a letter of appreciation from Charlotte A. Marsh for declaring July 2nd, 1976, as Charlotte Marsh Recognition Day and the citation conferred on her. Action on unlicensed dogs Chairman Farrar read aloud the warrant addressed to the Chief of Police, saying this is required each year. The Warrant was dated July 9, 1976, and was accompanied by a list of 150 dogs and their owners. These dogs were licensed last year but not this year, and in most cases prove to be dogs who have died or no longer living in Burlington. The Warrant gives the Chief of Police the authority to destroy any dogs found that are still unlicensed. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council approve the signing of this Warrant. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Procedure to formulate Council's action and position on items before the Zoning Board of Adjustment Chairman Farrar suggested one way for Council to play a fuller and proper role with the Zoning Board would be to ask the City Manager to have placed in the Council members' packets the appeals to the Zoning Board, so that Council could decide whether or not it wished to have Council represented during any particular appeal. Because Council would be meeting before the appeals were heard, it could make a conscientious determination as to whether it wished to present the formal view of the City. This would be in no way meant to influence the members of the Zoning Board but would be another way of getting input to them to help them in making their decisions. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council ask the City Manager to have the Zoning Board appeals included in the material sent to the Council members. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Mrs. Neubert said it is difficult to tell what the impact would be from reading the warning. Mr. Farrar said Mr. Ward could be asked to detail it a little more broadly. Mr. Flaherty said if Council is going to start implicating itself, it should not pick just one board, but all boards, and he would recommend including the Planning Commission. Mrs. Neubert asked if Council has the same statutory control over the Planning Commission. Mr. Flaherty replied the same law could direct Council to implicate itself because of the impact of what the Planning Commission was doing. Mrs. Neubert said there was a difference between the Zoning Board and the Planning Commission — a use variance and a zone change. Except through this procedure the Council has no control over the Zoning Board. Mr. Flaherty said he felt if Council gets involved in one, it should get involved in both of them. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council amend the original motion made by Mr. Dinklage and add the Planning Commission to the Zoning Board. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Mrs. Neubert said when the warning is in the paper, Council members can call Dick Ward to get more information. What bothered her, she said, was that when the Zoning Board does have a hearing and the people don't show up, the appeal is postponed, nobody is ever notified of the new date as it is not in the warning again. The vote on the amendment to the motion was three yes, one no, and one abstention. The original motion was voted unanimously for approval. Discussion on University Mall proposal Chairman Farrar had been told by Art Hogan that at the hearing before the Environmental Board on the extension of the University Mall, the Board had required additional signalization on Dorset Street, and Mr. Hogan had felt it might be possible to apply for urban systems funds for the signals required, and that the developer could be asked to pay what would be the City's matching share of the project. It was recommended by Mr. Hogan that this be explored as a specific proposal. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council instruct the City Manager to explore with the Environmental Board the possibility of obtaining Urban Systems funds for the implementation of signaling along Dorset Street required by the expansion of the Rand Industries Mail and to explore the possibility of having Rand Industries pay the local, community's share of the Urban Systems funding if obtained. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Continued discussion on the Capital Budget program Chairman Farrar said a baseline had been established by the earlier motion, and the Council should study and review the various items and consider the timing for them based on these assumptions. He asked the City Manager to look at the school issues, the sewers, to see if the timing would change because of those things. Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Page for another copy of the amount of land still undeveloped, figures prepared by Mr. Page previously. The Chairman then recommended that this be discussed at a separate meeting with a one-item Agenda. Mr. Dinklage suggested offering a specific invitation at that time to any member of the Planning Commission or the School Board, or the general public, anyone who wished to participate in the discussion. Mr. Farrar suggested the assumption the Council would use could be brought up at the meeting of the Steering Committee under the heading of "Other Business." Mrs. Neubert felt the Southern Connector Extension should be added to the projects under Transportation; also the skating-swimming complex should be added. Mr. Farrar said he had talked with the Water Department and learned they did not expect any substantial expansion. Mrs. Neubert said the recommendations of the Task Force for immediate improvements on Williston Road should belong in the list; the City will probably be proceeding with those as soon as possible. Mr. Page distributed copies of the legislation which changed the status of the Capital Budget, changing it to something similar to a plan, not a by-law. Mrs. Neubert asked if anybody was working on the Comprehensive Plan for 1977. Mr. Page said it could be adopted in its present form to last another five years but would be time locked on any amendments. It should be up-dated in 1977. Mr. Flaherty moved that the meeting be adjourned. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and approved unanimously. The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.